176:
thinks he should close the discussion before the 7-day period to avoid that. I have asked multiple times for evidence to his claim, but I got nothing except him believing so. None of the editors is blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and the discussion should run normally till the end. A discussion in this form should end in 'No
Consensus', or at least that's what I believe. I voted a 'Delete' myself, but I think Bilby is overriding the deletion discussion consensus to his favor. What I would suggest is to reopen the discussion, stirke out votes for paid editors(if any) and let the discussion end normally.
191:
I'm surprised that I wasn't notified of this. At any rate, the AfD had been extended three times, so it had been running for almost a month when I closed it. I closed it after it became clear that the client was continuing to hire editors on Upwork to vote at the AfD, and no new arguments had been
175:
I discussed the matter with Bilby before coming here, and I got nothing except accusations and paid editing jobs that have no evidence. The closing administrator original claim stems from that he thinks the 'Keep' votes were done for pay and that many other editors are going to get hired, so he
230:
looks like the best source, one can make a "local" argument, but the new source itself is international (but known for covering each market as its own thing)). I'd have argued to keep based on the sources, but it isn't clear cut. Given the paid editing issues raised by Bilby above, I think
259:, we don't actually have any tangible evidence that votes were done for pay. These are wild claims, and when they not backed up by evidence, I think it makes the case worse. That's IAR card fired by Bilby's intuition that their argument that the article should be kept isn't sufficient
616:
I thought the article wasn't that brilliant or that bad, I saw the history of the article is still there, I had a another look. There were 30 citations on the page, and I thought only 8 of them were really helpful for the article. But the guy had one of his articles published in the
563:- I probably would have voted to keep this if I'd participated in the AfD. But it had been open plenty long enough and, with misbehaviour startig up and no new opinions being offered, I don't see a reall issue with cutting the third relist a bit short.
273:
They really aren't that wild. We know that one or more people were paid to edit the article. Some of the !voters are appear to be socks. So yes, it's a pretty good case that the AfD had issues. And honestly the notability is very borderline.
584:. The combination of known socking, multiple non-policy keep arguments from users who I shall charitably describe as having limited editing experience, and highly promotional content, adds up to delete being a perfectly reasonable close. --
363:
Sorry, I was confused, thought the nom and the closer had said they closed it early, and I misread the dates. Pointless relisting annoys me. I wasn't closed early, any closer can ignore a relist. I'm still confused. Are the "keep" !voters
529:
I take offence if you're calling me a paid editor, I only reviewed what I saw, and I it was so long ago I don't remember what the article looks like, I would also like to know what page cite 19 was that I pointed out!!
349:, I'm afraid that the OP was a bit misleading. The AfD was open for 26 days before I closed it. There had only been one new comment (other than that of a very likely paid editor) in the last 11 days. -
212:. Accordingly, with the increasing number of undisclosed paid editors involved, no new arguments being offered, and the AfD having been open for over three weeks, I thought it was time to close it. -
618:
313:
Reopen for a minimum total open time of 168 hours. Do not make administrative shortcuts to save time, that’s not what works. Weekend editors need a chance to contribute, for example. —
228:
158:
48:
34:
496:
OK. I don’t like the notion of closing “early due to issues with undisclosed paid editors”, but that is not what happened. It was a close but a good call.
43:
389:
146:
204:. Thus it was a valid G5 candidate when nominated. Only two other editors had made substantial contributions to the page - one of which was
482:), another is unknown, and a third was hired for off-wiki research. Others may have been hired during this period outside of Upwork. -
403:
417:
39:
167:
465:
479:
21:
451:
375:
383:
641:
621:, which is also a published newspaper, and the fact he wrote a published book. That's why I went with weak keep.
96:
17:
468:) was hired, then edited and voted as a UPE. In the last few days, the client hired three more people - one was
630:
608:
591:
576:
553:
539:
509:
491:
433:
358:
341:
322:
307:
283:
268:
247:
221:
185:
85:
397:
116:
604:
411:
379:
332:
content except for “best player in the
National Championships as a 17-year-old”. I.e. it was a CV. —
112:
505:
459:
429:
337:
318:
192:
offered for or against the article in the last two weeks. I note that the creator of the article -
588:
473:
393:
600:
445:
407:
329:
264:
201:
181:
227:
Without comment on the paid editing problem, the subject appears to be borderline notable (
626:
549:
535:
487:
369:
354:
279:
243:
217:
209:
570:
501:
455:
425:
346:
333:
314:
205:
585:
544:
I have no reason to think that you were paid. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. -
421:
303:
80:
74:
469:
441:
260:
193:
177:
622:
545:
531:
483:
365:
350:
275:
256:
239:
213:
197:
564:
298:
200:, and was later identified as a sock of the blocked paid editor
328:
At AfD I would start
Leaning “Delete”, as the article has zero
153:
139:
131:
123:
70:
Bad-faith nomination by (amazingly) yet another sock.
295:I temporarily undeleted the article history.
8:
95:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
454:), was. When it was nominated for AfD
7:
644:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
640:The above is an archive of the
440:No, but the original creator,
86:08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
631:10:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
609:19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
592:17:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
577:10:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
554:13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
540:12:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
510:11:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
492:10:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
434:11:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
359:07:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
342:06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
323:06:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
308:23:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
284:00:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
269:15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
248:15:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
222:14:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
186:13:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
208:, a sock of the paid editor
667:
235:is a reasonable closure.
599:due to the paid editing
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
647:Please do not modify it.
102:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
420:) being alleged to be
72:– Decision endorsed
99:of the page above.
654:
653:
196:- was blocked by
84:
658:
649:
380:Crazy Cat Person
330:secondary source
202:User:Strizivojna
170:
165:
156:
142:
134:
126:
104:
78:
64:
59:7 September 2018
53:
49:2018 September 8
35:2018 September 6
33:
666:
665:
661:
660:
659:
657:
656:
655:
645:
642:deletion review
575:
210:User:Jkmarold55
166:
164:
161:
152:
151:
145:
138:
137:
130:
129:
122:
121:
113:Paddy Steinfort
100:
97:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
664:
662:
652:
651:
636:
635:
634:
633:
611:
594:
579:
569:
558:
557:
556:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
310:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
251:
250:
224:
206:User:WikiSniki
173:
172:
162:
149:
143:
135:
127:
119:
107:
106:
91:
90:
89:
88:
61:
56:
47:
44:2018 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
663:
650:
648:
643:
638:
637:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
593:
590:
587:
583:
580:
578:
574:
573:
568:
567:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
528:
525:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
475:
471:
467:
464:
461:
457:
453:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
413:
409:
405:
402:
399:
395:
391:
388:
385:
381:
377:
374:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
311:
309:
305:
301:
300:
296:
293:
292:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
229:
225:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
169:
160:
155:
148:
141:
133:
125:
118:
114:
111:
110:
109:
108:
105:
103:
98:
93:
92:
87:
82:
77:
76:
71:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
646:
639:
613:
596:
581:
571:
565:
560:
526:
497:
476:
462:
448:
414:
400:
394:Gprscrippers
386:
372:
312:
297:
294:
236:
232:
174:
101:
94:
73:
69:
58:
601:Atlantic306
408:JC7V7DC5768
226:<ec: -->
194:User:Gharee
198:User:MER-C
619:heraldsun
502:SmokeyJoe
456:WikiSniki
426:SmokeyJoe
347:SmokeyJoe
334:SmokeyJoe
315:SmokeyJoe
614:Comments
586:RoySmith
480:contribs
466:contribs
452:contribs
418:contribs
404:contribs
390:contribs
376:contribs
20: |
597:Endorse
582:Endorse
561:Endorse
527:Comment
498:Endorse
470:Kevroby
422:WP:UPEs
237:endorse
168:restore
132:history
589:(talk)
442:Gharee
261:Bradgd
233:delete
178:Bradgd
623:Govvy
546:Bilby
532:Govvy
484:Bilby
424:? --
366:Govvy
351:Bilby
304:talk
276:Hobit
257:Hobit
240:Hobit
214:Bilby
154:watch
147:links
81:Help!
52:: -->
16:<
627:talk
605:talk
566:Reyk
550:talk
536:talk
506:talk
488:talk
474:talk
460:talk
446:talk
430:talk
412:talk
398:talk
384:talk
370:talk
355:talk
338:talk
319:talk
280:talk
265:talk
244:talk
218:talk
182:talk
140:logs
124:edit
117:talk
32:<
572:YO!
500:. —
406:),
392:),
378:),
299:DGG
159:XfD
157:) (
75:Guy
22:Log
629:)
607:)
552:)
538:)
508:)
490:)
432:)
357:)
340:)
321:)
306:)
282:)
267:)
246:)
220:)
184:)
42::
625:(
603:(
548:(
534:(
504:(
486:(
477:·
472:(
463:·
458:(
449:·
444:(
428:(
415:·
410:(
401:·
396:(
387:·
382:(
373:·
368:(
353:(
336:(
317:(
302:(
278:(
263:(
242:(
216:(
180:(
171:)
163:|
150:|
144:|
136:|
128:|
120:|
115:(
83:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.